[tdwg-content] Unintentionally introducing classes. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Bertram Ludaescher]

On a somewhat related note:

Has someone pointers to "real-world reasoning examples", i.e., where
datasets, assertions, or other semantic web or LOD "knowledge" is used to
make "interesting" inferences?

Additionally, what about simple querying (as opposed to reasoning) examples
over LOD and other "data out there"? (I realize that the borderline between
querying and reasoning is not as clear-cut as the terminology seems to
imply; e.g., Datalog rules are commonly viewed as queries, while logic
programming rules are viewed as inference rules)

I'm asking also because next quarter I'll be teaching an undergraduate class
on scientific data management and I'm looking for interesting datasets to
play with..

Thanks, best

Bertram

--
Bertram Ludäscher
Professor of Computer Science
Dept of Computer Science & Genome Center
University of California, Davis
ludaesch at ucdavis.edu / daks.ucdavis.edu
Phone: +1-530-554-1800


On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Paul Murray <pmurray at anbg.gov.au> wrote:

> >
> > Anybody can do that, so how do we certify metadata sources as "trusted"
> in our community?  The state of the LOD cloud at the moment reminds me of
> the early days of email and the Web, when it was reasonably "safe" to assume
> that users' intentions were good.  Then came viruses, trojans, phishing
> scams, etc.  If those kinds of things had been considered at the start of
> email and the Web and considered in its design, it would have been easier to
> prevent (or reduce) the evolution of nefarious uses of the Web.  Perhaps we
> should be thinking about that more now when we are in the early stages of
> designing for the "semantic web".
>
> "The cloud" is never going to be a consistent ontology (it only takes one
> person asserting "A is not A" ). When you ask a reasoner to reason, you
> always give it a limited set of triples that you trust for its axioms. I
> haven't looked into it yet in any detail, but I think that this is the role
> of SPARQL - it becomes possible to say "using the reasoning rules *here* and
> *here*, reason over all the triples served up at at biodiversity.org.auand
> zoobank.org". The other alternative is "importing" all of the individual
> URIs at biodiversity.org.au, which is obviously infeasible.
>
> > There has been the suggestion made by several people that we need a
> second kind of Darwin Core, an RDF recommendation that will allow for deep
> semantic reasoning.
>
> I don't think you need an entirely different DwC. What will serve the
> purpose is a auxiliary vocabulary document. A separate document with OWL
> rules about the DwC predicates, which you can choose to import and reason
> over. Those rules don't need to be in the document defining the vocabulary.
> Perhaps more than one ruleset.
>
>
>
> ------
> If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
> immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any
> attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute
> waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
> information in the e-mail or attachments.
>
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> ------
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20101110/113efb39/attachment.html